Do living dinosaurs disprove evolution?

[Areopagite]

Um, yeah, anyway … let me bring it back to the question at hand:

Is it possible, based on what some people have been saying, that if dinosaurs did survive up through human history, that it doesn’t disprove evolution but merely some theories regarding the gravity of the various worldwide disasters and what species were extinguished by them? Is that fair to say?

 

[donsnow]

Um, yeah, anyway … let me bring it back to the question at hand:

Is it possible, based on what some people have been saying, that if dinosaurs did survive up through human history, that it doesn’t disprove evolution but merely some theories regarding the gravity of the various worldwide disasters and what species were extinguished by them? Is that fair to say?

From the little I know about evolution, and from the (name removed by moderator)ut of more knowledgeable of the
TOE members than I, then, yes, it’s fair to say that a living dinosaur would not challenge the present TOE.

 

[wanstronian]

Simplistically, evolutionary change occurs due to mutations that increase the survivability of the species. If a species is perfectly matched to its environment such that no mutations confer such an advantage, then the species may stay virtually unchanged for millions of years. It certainly wouldn’t contradict Evolutionary theory, and might even go so far as to comprehensively reinforce the Punctuated Equilibrium strand of the theory.

Such a possibility was novelised by Arthur Conan Doyle, in The Lost World.

 

[stenlis]

Cabrera claimed the reason for this was to protect the site (from artifact-robbers or something).

Considering that an archeological investigation of his ‘sites’ would be the greatest historical/paleontological discovery ever (surpassing Schlieman’s Troy with ease) catapulting him to a superstar status in the field of archeology…

The same is claimed about certain Egyptian art. We know for a fact that the Greeks did brain surgery. The surgical instruments they had apparently are very similar to modern ones too. The supposed “flying machines” on the stones look more like large birds that the natives are riding, in my opinion (but Cabrera doesn’t think so), and the “telescopes” could be some kind of sticks instead.

Yeah, but the Egyptians and Greeks left us tons of artifacts with the level of craftsmanship corresponding to their technological prowess.

Also, the style of the art is somewhat primitive but it more or less matches the general style of legitimate ancient artifacts found elsewhere in that area.

It somewhat matches the style but it’s nowhere near as skillfully made. (Or, to be more precise, none of the alleged 50 000 stones is as well made as some of the 10 000 arts made by Maya)

And, of course, there are 50,000 of them, suggesting that it wasn’t just some farmer. That would be physically impossible.

The more of them there are the more you should be wondering why there are not other remnants of their civilization. Do you believe that the first 50 000 items from an advanced civilization found are all of the ‘easy to forge’ type by pure chance?

Also, apparently, the scenes that depict hunters killing dinosaurs show them stabbing in what scientists have agreed would be particularly vulnerable areas. It shows (at least occasionally) a greater degree of knowledge than some unskilled farmer would have.

Cabrera claims the ‘scientists agree’ thing. Not the scientists themselves. Take a look at the pictures. The people are stabbing the beasts in the general direction of necks and chests. That doesn’t require a degree in paleontology. The farmers in Ica all know how to kill an animal.

But there are a lot of things about the Ica stones that discredit them. And yet, there is a good amount of seemingly irrefutable evidence that suggests they’re authentic (at least some of them). A lot of stuff about them are just weird.

From my perspective I don’t see any irrefutable evidence of the stone’s authenticity. In fact it has ‘hoax’ written all over the thing!

 

[Detales]

Areo~*Hence, an evolutionist would have no problem with the idea that dinosaurs may still be alive today, right? * Why would they? That something is or isn’t alive today isn’t the point. The coeleocanth is another example, besides the frilled shark. But seriously, do you think a stegosaurus might get by unnoticed in today’s word, given that we believe it was a herd herbivore? Or even three hundred, five hundred years ago? Would there not be stories and such? I think you are being a bit naive in order to bolster a facet of your piety, no?

Again, science deals with a specific kind of analytical thought based on material observation. It is not a metaphysical discipline. It can’t, therefore be inclusive of or verifying of piety. Some branches of it might serve in verifying history, as the archeological and literary evidence tends to point to the roots of christianism being in fact Egyptian in origin,* but they do not prove, eg, that God is or isn’t or that “Creation” involved even only the Big Bang, whatever that was.

*see post 522 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6062950#post6062950

 

[buffalo]

Areo~*Hence, an evolutionist would have no problem with the idea that dinosaurs may still be alive today, right? * Why would they? That something is or isn’t alive today isn’t the point. The coeleocanth is another example, besides the frilled shark. But seriously, do you think a stegosaurus might get by unnoticed in today’s word, given that we believe it was a herd herbivore? Or even three hundred, five hundred years ago? Would there not be stories and such? I think you are being a bit naive in order to bolster a facet of your piety, no?

Again, science deals with a specific kind of analytical thought based on material observation. It is not a metaphysical discipline. It can’t, therefore be inclusive of or verifying of piety. Some branches of it might serve in verifying history, as the archeological and literary evidence tends to point to the roots of christianism being in fact Egyptian in origin,* but they do not prove, eg, that God is or isn’t or that “Creation” involved even only the Big Bang, whatever that was.

*see post 522 at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6062950#post6062950

There are stories. Did you ever see the PBS special on dragons?

 

[Hosh]

There are stories. Did you ever see the PBS special on dragons?

Do you also believe in the Boogyman? UFO’s? Ghosts? Telepathy? Clairvoyance?

 

[buffalo]

Do you also believe in the Boogyman? UFO’s? Ghosts? Telepathy? Clairvoyance?

Huh? Perhaps you could get a copy of this program and judge for yourself.

Oh - but before that perhaps you should check out what dragons really are.

 

[Hosh]

Huh? Perhaps you could get a copy of this program and judge for yourself.

Oh - but before that perhaps you should check out what dragons really are.

Sorry, I was over that stage at age 8. Quite a few more people have sighted UFO’s and ghosts then dragons.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry, I was over that stage at age 8. Quite a few more people have sighted UFO’s and ghosts then dragons.

Suit yourself.

 

[donsnow]

Howdy, ya’ll -

I think that there’s something to all the traditions of dragons.

Arthur Pendragon’s (King Arthur of British fame) banner had a golden dragon on it.

As we all know, the Chines have a tradition of dragons.

Back to the British Ilse s, St. George killed something.

There’s Norse legends of giant ‘wyrms’ or worms.

The Central American Quetzalcoatl looks like some depictions of dragons, that I’ve seen.

So, China to Central America to Europe: all around the globe are traditions of dragons. I think there’s a kernel of truth to all the legends. Plus, the Biblical dragon in a pit in Babylon.

 

[buffalo]

Here it is:

Quest for Dragons

 

[donsnow]

Here it is:

Quest for Dragons

Thanks, anyway, buffalo -

Because of circumstances beyond my control, my computer doesn’t do videos well enough to watch for over an hour while a 15 minute clip unwinds. Doesn’t have speakers, either. Neither of these conditions are likely to change in the near future.

 

[Areopagite]

Considering that an archeological investigation of his ‘sites’ would be the greatest historical/paleontological discovery ever (surpassing Schlieman’s Troy with ease) catapulting him to a superstar status in the field of archeology…

Yes, although ironically, Schlieman was known for fabricating things here and there. The Mask of Agamemnon is very likely his creation.

Maybe Cabrera doesn’t want to be a superstar but genuinely wants the site protected. On the other hand, he might be a liar. Or, he could be a psycho. There are strong cases to be made for each one. Perhaps it’s a little bit of all three.

Yeah, but the Egyptians and Greeks left us tons of artifacts with the level of craftsmanship corresponding to their technological prowess.

I good point. Maybe the dinosaurs ate everything. Or else the artifacts have yet to be discovered.

It somewhat matches the style but it’s nowhere near as skillfully made. (Or, to be more precise, none of the alleged 50 000 stones is as well made as some of the 10 000 arts made by Maya)

Perhaps the stones were mere jots, rather than official works of art. Some egyptian art is pretty messy too. But you may be right.

And there are theories that the supposed “advanced technology” depicted on the stones are not technology at all. Cabrera thinks it is, but he’s a little out there on that issue.

The more of them there are the more you should be wondering why there are not other remnants of their civilization. Do you believe that the first 50 000 items from an advanced civilization found are all of the ‘easy to forge’ type by pure chance?

As easy to forge as they would be, there are 50,000 of them. And they do not have identical styles to them. That’s the bigger mystery.

Cabrera claims the ‘scientists agree’ thing. Not the scientists themselves. Take a look at the pictures. The people are stabbing the beasts in the general direction of necks and chests. That doesn’t require a degree in paleontology. The farmers in Ica all know how to kill an animal.

Not a bad point.

From my perspective I don’t see any irrefutable evidence of the stone’s authenticity. In fact it has ‘hoax’ written all over the thing!

Their authenticity is definitely not irrefutable. But if it’s a hoax, it’s a HUGE hoax. But you may be right. After looking at both sides of the argument, however, I say, at the very least, it should not be dismissed so easily.

Areo~*Hence, an evolutionist would have no problem with the idea that dinosaurs may still be alive today, right? *

There’s all kinds of stories throughout the world in vastly different cultures, as Donsnow has pointed out.

And in any case, while I think it very possible that dinosaurs may have existed in ancient and medieval times (as stories and art from those times suggest), I believe that not as many would probably be alive now, because it seems that we would hear about them. Nonetheless, occasionally there are reports, especially deep in South America and the Congo. Maybe the stagosaurus, in particular, though, has bit the dust for good. I don’t know.

I think you are being a bit naive in order to bolster a facet of your piety, no?

Bingo. You got me. Nothing is hidden from you.

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. Why do you suppose I have pietistic ends here? I’m helping the evolutionists (even atheistic ones incidentally) to disarm a popular Creationist argument. So what on earth are you talking about?

Do you also believe in the Boogyman? UFO’s? Ghosts? Telepathy? Clairvoyance?

I’m not sure about the Boogyman. But I firmly believe in all the others. Why shouldn’t I?

 

[Detales]

I’m aware that people who over the centuries have found dinosaur bones thought of them as dragons. Rightly so. Even a human or a dog with unbrushed teeth can be horrifying. Can you imagine a behemoth?

I will see if I can find the program. Thanks.

 

[Detales]

Areo~"…evolutionists seem to be threatened when Creationists make an argument that dinosaurs could have been around in recent history."

I don’t believe they are “threatened,” Areo, they just are incredulous that someone would believe that stegosauri recently roamed anywhere on the planet. I don’t think they are iether threatened nor concerned that the occasional coeleocanth or frilled shark shows up to prove a belived extinction to be false. That has no bearing on the theory itself.

Areo~“I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. Why do you suppose I have pietistic ends here?”

Uh… Because you are Catholic and despite being educated to a college degree you don’t seem to question it or your view of God???

 

[Areopagite]

I don’t believe they are “threatened,” Areo, they just are incredulous that someone would believe that stegosauri recently roamed anywhere on the planet. I don’t think they are iether threatened nor concerned that the occasional coeleocanth or frilled shark shows up to prove a belived extinction to be false. That has no bearing on the theory itself.

I’m sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say: “evolutionists seem to ACT threatened when Creationists make an argument that dinosaurs could have been around in recent history.” I’m not saying their theories of evolution are actually threatened in reality, but many evolutionists think they are. But I’m here to console them and say that recently living dinosaurs don’t pose any threat to them.

Uh… Because you are Catholic and despite being educated to a college degree you don’t seem to question it or your view of God???

What do you mean by “question”? Do you mean I don’t willfully create doubt about my view of God? Or do you mean I don’t ask questions to try and understand God more fully? I’ll claim right now that my view of God is incomplete. I continuously ask questions about God. But I won’t doubt my view until I have reason to … at which point it will no longer be my view.

And I’m still wondering why in the world you brought this up. It seems kinda random.

 

[Sair]

Okay - wearing dinosaur-nerd hat again!

If you allow me my nerd-hat: velociraptors were actually very small critters … the size of dogs or something like that. It’s kind of disappointing.

Certainly, velociraptors were not much bigger than turkeys - their size was enhanced for the Jurassic Park films, in an overt act of dramatic licence; however, the really cool thing is that a couple of years after the first JP film was released, palaeontologists actually discovered fossils of raptors that actually were the size of the ones in the movie, and they were named Utahraptors (after the discovery location).

Also, I’d fancy my chances of avoiding a single large predator moreso than a pack of small ones… :yup:

 

[donsnow]

1. The supposedly highly advanced civilization depicted in the Ica collection failed to leave any artifact other than a couple hundred well preserved unskillfuly decorated stones.

Hi, stenlis -

We don’t have enough information, for me to respond to your fourth article with certainty. However, a lot of pre-Inca civilizations in the Andes were advanced, when the Inca system overtook them. Some of the Inca’s advancements were actually made by the civilizations which they overtook; so, those Inca appropriated advances could be the missing artifacts.

Just a thought.

 

[Hosh]

I’m sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say: “evolutionists seem to ACT threatened when Creationists make an argument that dinosaurs could have been around in recent history.” I’m not saying their theories of evolution are actually threatened in reality, but many evolutionists think they are. But I’m here to console them and say that recently living dinosaurs don’t pose any threat to them.

What do you mean by “question”? Do you mean I don’t willfully create doubt about my view of God? Or do you mean I don’t ask questions to try and understand God more fully? I’ll claim right now that my view of God is incomplete. I continuously ask questions about God. But I won’t doubt my view until I have reason to … at which point it will no longer be my view.

And I’m still wondering why in the world you brought this up. It seems kinda random.

It means that it seems very irrational of you to be so invested into the idea that dinosaurs have roamed this earth anytime within the last 60 million years. Even to say that they survived a significant amount of time after K-T is taking a lot of creative license. This isn’t a question about God, its a question of nature. True, Spinoza and Taoists find the two mutually inclusive, but your looking for… what are you looking for? perhaps you should be clear with your motivations.

Living Dinosaurs wouldn’t pose a threat to Evolutionists, but it would leave every single one of us scratching are heads because it wouldn’t add up.